Homosexuality is not natural and is not normality

[LuisDantas]

I agree about Title , no shy .

for my opinion , homosex and lesbien is mental disease , just say an opinion ,no offend.

I fail to see why such a personal thing as sexual inclinations should be considered a disease.

In which sense could that be true?

I suppose they do go against the grain of expectations of establishing traditional families, but by that token so would taking celibacy vows to become a priest. IMO, citizens simply have no duty to conform to those expectations.

Besides, it is not even clear that those expectations are to be encouraged in the first place - among other reasons, because they often lead to loads of unhappiness and no discernible benefit.

Lack of full acceptance of people's sexuality as it actually is, now that is a disease.

Except for sexual motivations or behavior that can cause actual damage (co-dependency, pedophilia, sadism, masochism), it seems clear to me that pretty much everything is fair game, as long as the people actually involved are honest and respectful with each other.

 

[McBell]

Norman: Hi Jumi, There must be something special about sex because between a man and a woman that is how babies are made. Why do so
many people dance around this?

Who is dancing around it?

Sad that so many people think "sex if for making babies" is some sort of trump card.

 

[LuisDantas]

Norman: Hi Jumi, There must be something special about sex because between a man and a woman that is how babies are made. Why do so
many people dance around this?

I'm not dancing around this. I am saying outright that this is no argument to disapprove of LGBT.

Reproduction is one of several roles for sex. One that is neither in particular need of attention at this point in time, nor under any kind of danger, nor is it even clear that LGBT is even slightly detrimental to it.

If anything, one can more convincingly argue (as I do) that conception itself is the least challenge of raising new generations, and the existence LGBT is actually a blessing to the well-being of our future generations. It helps in improving the correlation between reproduction itself and actual family raising, since LGBT are far less likely to have or attempt to raise unwanted children.

 

[sojourner]

Norman: Hi sojourner, there is no such thing as over population. It is just a cop out statement in regards to same sex attraction.

Yeeeah.

 

[sojourner]

Norman: Hi LuisDantas, I think what else is needed is that there is no bridge of understanding. Same attraction couples make an
argument to support Same sex attraction. People who is not in the same sex attraction situation argue that this is more normal and
same sex attraction is not. As many times as this subject keeps coming up it seems to be like beating a dead horse. I have yet to
see any common ground statements on this subject.

The mental and behavioral health sciences community says it's normal and healthy. the bible "says" it's "wrong." Who is going to be more credible with regard to matters of human health? Scientists, or ancient nomads? The "bridge of understanding that needs to be built has two spans:
1) understanding the nature of the texts, without idolizing them, and exegeting them to find out what they may actually be saying on the the subject (and why)
2) understanding that, with regard to science (and human behavior is part of science), scientists trump biblical writers.

 

[sojourner]

Reproduction is what it is all about between two human beings, period.

Right. That's why the prophylactic industry is so frickin' huge. Because "making babies" is what sex is "all about." And you say that your religious beliefs don't bias your understanding. Bah!

 

[sojourner]

People who agree with same sex attraction says you can't include God or religion.

I agree that same-sex attraction is normal and healthy for those who have that orientation. And I say that you can and should include God and religion -- so long as the bible is read and applied in a reasonable manner.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Right. That's why the prophylactic industry is so frickin' huge. Because "making babies" is what sex is "all about." And you say that your religious beliefs don't bias your understanding. Bah!

The Reproduction Bias also either minimizes or completely eliminates female sexuality in these conversations....the role of the clitoris and the female orgasm, the menstrual cycle that only allows fertility in a narrow window of opportunity, the onset of menopause and infertility, and the fact that the human female remains sexually inquisitive during menstruation, during pregnancy, during lactation, and after menopause.

The focus of reproduction as a "purpose" of sex in humans comes from a religio-cultural bias that is hard to let go.

 

[sojourner]

It could be viewed as a "disease" in the same sense that the old Asperger's Syndrome (now rolled into "Autism Spectrum" in DSM V) is. A deviation from what is most common (aka "normal) isn't necessarily anything dysfunctional or wrong. (All of our traits are definitely natural though.) Just offering a perspective for all to consider.

I could be wrong (need to look at it again), but I don't believe the DSM IV lists homosexuality as a "deviation."

 

[dust1n]

Hmm... was just rereading this thread, and I still have no idea what this thread is actually about. What is the take away from the OP? I can't figure out the one sentence that is suppose to be a claim? What's the debate?

 

[Revoltingest]

I could be wrong (need to look at it again), but I don't believe the DSM IV lists homosexuality as a "deviation."

I thought they ditched it by #4 too.

 

[columbus]

I agree about Title , no shy .

for my opinion , homosex and lesbien is mental disease , just say an opinion ,no offend.

Why is this your opinion?

Tom

 

[Norman]

Right. That's why the prophylactic industry is so frickin' huge. Because "making babies" is what sex is "all about." And you say that your religious beliefs don't bias your understanding. Bah!

Norman: Hi sojourner, Humbog. I do enjoy your post's.

 

[Norman]

Hmm... was just rereading this thread, and I still have no idea what this thread is actually about. What is the take away from the OP? I can't figure out the one sentence that is suppose to be a claim? What's the debate?

Norman: Hi dust1n, Excuse my ignorance, but what does "OP" mean?

 

[Norman]

Yeeeah.

Norman: Hi sojourner, Thank you for being so patient with me. Sometimes I can be over bearing.

 

[Norman]

Right. That's why the prophylactic industry is so frickin' huge. Because "making babies" is what sex is "all about." And you say that your religious beliefs don't bias your understanding. Bah!

Norman: Hi sojourner, Yes, I am sure my religious belief's probably is a biased understanding.

 

[Nietzsche]

Norman: Hi dust1n, Excuse my ignorance, but what does "OP" mean?

Original Post/Original Poster.

 

[Norman]

I'm not dancing around this. I am saying outright that this is no argument to disapprove of LGBT.

Reproduction is one of several roles for sex. One that is neither in particular need of attention at this point in time, nor under any kind of danger, nor is it even clear that LGBT is even slightly detrimental to it.

If anything, one can more convincingly argue (as I do) that conception itself is the least challenge of raising new generations, and the existence LGBT is actually a blessing to the well-being of our future generations. It helps in improving the correlation between reproduction itself and actual family raising, since LGBT are far less likely to have or attempt to raise unwanted children.

Norman: Hi LuisDantas, I was not talking about you specifically I hope you did not take it that way. Good Post.

 

[Norman]

Who is dancing around it?

Sad that so many people think "sex if for making babies" is some sort of trump card.

Norman: Hi Mestemia, Well, I would think that it is not a trump card. Isn't it just a matter of fact.? Why is there so much more to it?
All I am saying is everyone knows thru the centuries that making babies is between a man and a woman, nothing more.

 

[Norman]

Original Post/Original Poster.

Norman: Hi Nietzsche, Thank you for explaining that to me.